Is The Monarchy Worth Keeping?

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Oh, stop it. Civic and charity work is carried out in our country by many who get nothing, they just give their time to charity and good works. No photos, no palaces, no nothing. You have no idea who they are. Beatrix Fan is on the money. Also, since Beatrix Fan lives in Britain, their opinion is far more valid than anyone who does not. Also, the royals have what they have, because of their status. For years they did not pay income taxes, so while the poor British schnook forked over whatever they had to, the RF kept everything for themselves. It grew exponetially. Also, the great lands and homes were a perq from their position, too. They were not earning a buck on street corners. They cut ribbons and opened meat markets. The queen has done a marvelous job holding the Commonwealth together. At her end, it will end. Yes, the monarchy benefits England, because those of us who live in reality, seem to find facination with people who ride in carriages and live in palaces and wear tiaras. It is an anachronism for the 21st century. But it is entertainment.

I will be HAPPY to yield to BRITISH public opinion on this matter and at this point in time, they OVERWHELMINGLY in their numbers support the monarchy.

[COUNTESS]

It's not just a head of state, they have a prime minister who is runs the show, but is a bargain. It is the whole Hoo Ha that goes along with it. And lots of family members with fancy titles. And British citizens have more right to an opinion on their monarchy. And, yes, they want this monarchy now, with the present queen, but in the future it is their choice, no one elses.

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

It's not just a head of state, they have a prime minister who is runs the show, but is a bargain. It is the whole Hoo Ha that goes along with it. And lots of family members with fancy titles. And British citizens have more right to an opinion on their monarchy. And, yes, they want this monarchy now, with the present queen, but in the future it is their choice, no one elses.

YES, they do want it now and into the future;

"Voting online and on interactive television through BBCi opened five days before the programme was aired and telephone voting took place on the day of transmission.

The final results showed that 41% thought the monarchy was out of date with 57% saying it was not (2% not sure).

Forty-four per cent of voters thought the monarchy cost the taxpayer too much money with 54% saying they did not (2% not sure).

Nineteen per cent wanted to see an elected president, with 49% wishing to see Charles as the next King and 32% wanting to see Prince William as the next Head of State."

BBC - Press Office - Monarchy Poll

[COUNTESS]

That is today. And how many people did actually vote. 57% of how many people? Nice try and even then Charles does not get a majority. 49% is hardly a landslide and how many people does this 49% represent, 1,000,000,000 or 5,000 or 500. This was not a real vote. And, if the majority of the British wants this, bless them. It is their right.

[diamondBrg]

Countess

Every five years or less General Elections are held to fill the seats of the UK House of Commons. Any time that the British public feels they no longer want the Monarchy, I am positive that their freely elected democratic members of Parliament can reflect their wishes.

49% for Charles and 32% for William equals 81% total.

57% is the overwhelming majority in a democracy.

[Elspeth]

Everybody here has a right to express an opinion as long as it's within the forum rules. People have a right to take the opinions of British citizens or British residents more seriously than the opinions of other posters if they wish to do so. Others have a right to take opinions more or less seriously on the basis of other criteria.

I've deleted the derail into US politics, btw.

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

Countess

Every five years or less General Elections are held to fill the seats of the UK House of Commons. Any time that the British public feels they no longer want the Monarchy, I am positive that their freely elected democratic members of Parliament can reflect their wishes.

49% for Charles and 32% for William equals 81% total.

57% is the overwhelming majority in a democracy.

Firstly, we don't vote on the monarchy in a general election. Look at every manifesto and you won't find the monarchy mentioned. Even the Liberal Democrats don't say they'd abolish it. So when we vote at general election, we're actually voting on everything but the monarchy. It might follow that those who vote Labour want to see an end to the hereditary priveledge and if that is the case then the Government would be in a position to introduce reforms to the monarchy at the very least. But I'm afraid that the British public doesn't get elections on demand, the political system works in a way that limits the impact of parties that might bring change on a big scale and I'd say to you that our representatives in the House of Commons are anything but elected democratically. I have to ask where your percentages come from too and how many people voted.

Does anyone really think that the cost for a head of state would go down if that head of state were a President?

The cost for a President could be the same but I can't see it being any higher. The point is, we'd be electing our Head of State rather than being ruled by a family. People seem to assume that a President has to be of the American model where the role is political - the fact is that in the Baltic states especially, Presidents have taken on a ceremonial role but they're elected. Ok so they're elected by the unicameral parliaments but when those bodies are elected by the people through the much preferable system of proportional representation, the peoples of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are benefitting from a much more effective and real form of democracy. Financially, we're led to believe that the monarchy is a good deal. This hinges on whether you believe the 61p figure and whether you accept that we should pay anything when the Queen is a billionairess anyway. According to Brian Hoey, it's her 'personal' fortune that pays for most of the ceremony we see. I doubt that very much and if Sandringham, Balmoral etc etc were all trimmed back to having Buckingham Palace as the Presidental Palace - I think we'd get a much better deal.

Or people who feel entitled to intrude into their private life and seek to become hitler like dictators can learn to mind their own business and live their own life. There are always options available.

The rise of the extreme left or the extreme right is inevitable in this country because it hasn't been allowed to happen before. Now that every political party aims for a centrist manifesto, it makes sense that far right and far left parties are seeing a boost in poll ratings and indeed, if we had a different system I'm sure we'd see many more 'fringe' parties in the House of Commons. I'm not sure whether you're suggesting I wish to become a Hitler-esque dictator but I think that that argument is quite weak considering that Britain is bound not only to the Treaty of Rome but also the Treaty of Maastricht, the Treaty of Nice and of course, the Lisbon Agreement which we've just signed to. Add to that our role in the UN as a leading nation and I think that you'd find it near impossible for a dictator to rise or for Britain to become North Korea or Nazi Germany. An elected Head of State doesn't equal an automatic dictator - rather, it gives Britain the democracy it has been denied for so many years. Even the names of our institutions are intended to keep the working man down - the House of Commons for one. It makes no sense in the 21st century for Britain to keep up the facade just to please tourists.

When tourists go to Buck House and Windsor Castle, the Queen isn't on the door in her housecoat giving a tour. Tourists go to America don't they? Tourists go to Germany too - being a monarchy doesn't attract tourists. And to be frank, it might be jolly dee for the tourists but for those of us who do live in Britain (and that doesn't make my opinion more valid) it's starting to become evident that something is wrong. Take a small example - my taxes upkeep the Crown Estate right? Yet I have to pay £15 to take a wander around the Tower of London. That property should belong to the people who pay for it and British citizens (not subjects) should be entitled to their heritage free of charge. If we had a President, the excess of monarchy would be exposed and I think people would see more tourists as they could actually see the real palaces etc and not just the bits the Queen lowers herself to show us.

The UK is most certainly a democracy. The House of Lords CANNOT block legislation and if the Monarch refused to assent to it and when was the last time that happened, btw, the House of Commons can simply abolish it.

I'm sorry but I find that incorrect. It's inherent in the British legislative system that democracy is denied. Through the use of the First Past the Post system, political parties are able to keep a grip on the electorate because smaller parties that most people would vote for, never get a chance to sit in the Commons. The House of Lords can and does block legislation and especially during the Blair premiership sent back numerous pieces of legislation which it found unacceptable and refused to pass. These are unelected men and women who are directly contradicting and refusing to give passage to, the legislation put together by the elected men and women of the so-called 'lower chamber'. Notice that the Lords were not so difficult during the Thatcher premiership. The monarch may not have refused assent but in reality, the House of Lords is full of people who do that on her behalf. The House of Commons cannot abolish the Lords - have you seen the outcry there was and still is over Lords reform? Ok it's mainly from the Lords themselves but politicians refuse to mention Lords reform for two reasons; one, it's a cushy number for them to retire to and two, it brings into question our entire constitution (you know the one we haven't got and aren't allowed?). Why have a House of Lords? Why have a monarchy? Why is it called the Commons? Britain is not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination and it'll take a huge change on a revolutionary scale to make us one.

You say Britain's a democracy, I suppose you know of the coup that was planned by Lord Mountbatten and a gaggle of grey men because they didn't like Harold Wilson tampering with the way things were? It wasn't that he was a dictator or that the monarchy was under threat, they planned a coup because for once, the people might have had a chance for real democracy and that wouldn't have worked financially for them.

The British public OVERWHELMINGLY WANTS the Monarchy because they get something out of it.

Do they? When have they shown they overwhelmingly want it? And what do they get out of it? What do they get from a monarchy that they can't get from a President? The answer = there is nothing the Queen does that can't be done by a President. The political system in this country is geared to keep the establishment firmly in place because it's advantageous for everyone within that establishment to keep the people down and to keep things the way they are. Now if thats the way things are then fine but as someone who pays to upkeep that way, I think I have the right to call for something else.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

What do they get from a monarchy that they can't get from a President? The answer = there is nothing the Queen does that can't be done by a President.

Well, France has a problem at the moment that britian would not have: the president just lost his "Première Dame" through divorce. Now France has got a problem with their diplomatic protocoll, while Britain had none when their Heir to the throne divorced his wife. Another Royal lady took over and that was that. But who can replace the wife of a elected president in terms of protocoll?

[BeatrixFan]

A relative of the President could. A mother, a sister, a daughter. Or, shock horror, the President could just be a single man for his time in office. Let's face it, a First Lady really is only to make things look pretty.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

You say Britain's a democracy, I suppose you know of the coup that was planned by Lord Mountbatten and a gaggle of grey men because they didn't like Harold Wilson tampering with the way things were? It wasn't that he was a dictator or that the monarchy was under threat, they planned a coup because for once, the people might have had a chance for real democracy and that wouldn't have worked financially for them.

Which has never once been proven to be true. If you want to make claims about people, you should provide credible sources.

Oh, and if you think coups don't happen in "democracies" (under your standard, there are none in the world, since there's always a disparity between popular opinion and the governing structure), you're sadly mistaken.

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by wbenson

Which has never once been proven to be true. If you want to make claims about people, you should provide credible sources.

Oh, and if you think coups don't happen in "democracies" (under your standard, there are none in the world, since there's always a disparity between popular opinion and the governing structure), you're sadly mistaken.

Well, firstly there are the Harold Wilson tapes, the testimony of Marcia Williams and other Cabinet members who were alerted to the plan. Conveniently, any traces from Royal sources have been tucked away. Coups do happen in democracies and at no point did I suggest they didn't. But I'd suggest to you that there are very very few democracies in this world.

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Well, France has a problem at the moment that britian would not have: the president just lost his "Première Dame" through divorce. Now France has got a problem with their diplomatic protocoll, while Britain had none when their Heir to the throne divorced his wife. Another Royal lady took over and that was that. But who can replace the wife of a elected president in terms of protocoll?

Japanese PM Junichiro Koizumi (2001-2006) is a divorcee. There was no protocol crisis. Everything will be attuned to fit new circumstances of the French President. Divorces do happen even in the most conservative societies such as the Japanese one.

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Firstly, we don't vote on the monarchy in a general election...

I really don't see how you can logically deduce what is in the minds of every voter that casts a ballot for the Labour Party, that is rather a stretch and a bit of mind reading.

No country gets elections on demand, there are systems in place that govern the calling of election. No nation on this planet has direct democracy, all that do have a democratic form of government have representative form of government. I believe yours is Parliamentarian?
Proportional representation, since you brought it up, is not always all it is cracked up to be, take for example that in some western nations only very wealthy people and those with political and business connections can afford to run for office? Every system has it's negatives.

Are you proposing SLAVERY for the Queen and the Royal Family? That they should receive nothing and spend their life working for free for you and the rest of the British public? Just who do you think you are that is so important that you are entitled to something like that?

Since an administrator has removed posts for specific countries being name and their internal politics being dealt with, I will refrain from addressing your points on the Balkan states.

I must say your postings can lead one to believe that you have Communist political views? Perhaps you could clarify that for me, in relation to how that would impact the UK should they become the majority view in the UK?

Lastly, at least at this time I can find not one public opinion poll conducted in the UK that would suggest that the Monarchy be abolished. I would suggest that your views are quite in the minority.

[Al_bina]

Is it too bad to have Communist political views? I seriously doubt that citizens of the UK can have views of a Communist nature.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Is it too bad to have Communist political views? I seriously doubt that citizens of the UK can have views of a Communist nature.

Why? In 1848 Marx published the "Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei" in London - the "Communist Manifesto" as it is called was and is still a published work in the UK.Or check out Communist Party of Britain - for peace and socialism...

[Skydragon]

All I can say, is that most of the time the Main members of the BRF do a good job, for the money they receive. I don't think that gives me a right to tell them how to live or who to marry.

I do however believe that it gives me the right to criticise them when they fall too far below the standard I expect from them.

[muriel]

I dont think the people of Britain want a republic. They ae happy with the monarchy as it stands!

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

I really don't see how you can logically deduce what is in the minds of every voter that casts a ballot for the Labour Party, that is rather a stretch and a bit of mind reading.

When people vote, they usually do so with an idea of what they're voting for. So, if people vote Conservative they will generally believe in Conservatism and if people vote for Labour they will generally believe in Socialism. Of course there are wasted votes but look at 1997 - a perfect opportunity to make change when socialism was demanded by the people. Did we get it? We got some of it but not all and I think had the monarchy hit critical point over the Diana death hoo-hah then Tony Blair would have had an opportunity to end the monarchy. I have no doubt that had it been Gordon Brown in office back then we'd be a very different nation now.

No country gets elections on demand, there are systems in place that govern the calling of election. No nation on this planet has direct democracy, all that do have a democratic form of government have representative form of government. I believe yours is Parliamentarian?

Exactly - no nation has direct democracy so no nation has real democracy. They have an autocracy that is hidden behind the more acceptable name of democracy. You say that only very wealthy people and those with the rights connections can afford to run for office in some countries - one of those countries is Britain. The ordinary working man will never get into parliament because a) it's believed that the cost to run a campaign is over £50,000 and b) if he isn't in one of the major three parties he can't win. He could get onto local council in local elections but he'll never make it into the Commons. But with proportional represenation (which still needs regulations) means that he can and that change is more evident.

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

Are you proposing SLAVERY for the Queen and the Royal Family? That they should receive nothing and spend their life working for free for you and the rest of the British public? Just who do you think you are that is so important that you are entitled to something like that?

Of course I'm not proposing slavery. Who said I wanted to keep them working for free? Good heavens no, what I'm proposing is that they either stay in Britain and get real jobs, live as real people and recieve the same rights as all other citizens would or they go abroad and live out their fantasys of still being in the Palace. As to who do I think I am - I think I'm a British citizen who has the freedom of speech and expression. I have the freedom and the right to outline the Britain I want to see and I have the right to colloborate with others who feel the same way in order to bring about change. It isn't importance, it's a human right and something which I'm entitled to under the UN Charter of 1947 and the Treaty of Rome.

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

I must say your postings can lead one to believe that you have Communist political views? Perhaps you could clarify that for me, in relation to how that would impact the UK should they become the majority view in the UK?

Communism is a vast umbrella term for many different schools of thought but I would say to you that communists do exist in Britain. They'd never get a chance to take control in this climate but it's this climate that means we get the rise of the extremes. Over the last 10 years, the various communist parties as well as the fascist parties have recieved a very clear rise in votes because people look to extremes when centrist politics fails. Now, these extremist parties have very extremist plans and the monarchy is always in their manifesto's whereas it's lacking from the three major parties. For example, the British National Party holds the monarchy up as an amazing institution that must be protected and should be celebrated as a symbol of Britain. The Worker's Party says that it should be abolished and a structure akin to that of the USSR put in. The problem is, both parties want something that is unachievable.

Britain will never accept the monarchy being ousted in the name of equality if a Ceacescu like figure takes the Queen's place and begins to live as royalty whilst the working classes suffer. Thats what we see with the majority of former communist states because they were operating on Stalinist communism. However, look at China which has it's problems and serious human rights abuses marked clearly against it's name but there's no denying that Maoism works for them. Communism is not one theory, it's hundreds of theories and so if you want to call me a communist then I respect your right to do so but I'd ask you to identify which sort of communist you believe I am. Being a communist doesn't nessecarily mean that one wishes to see persecution of massive groups of people or the murder of a Royal Family - again, very different schools of thought. Not every communist is a Marxist. There are Trotskyites, Leninists, Luxemburgists, Maoists and Bolsheviks as well as various mixtures.

The far left in Britain is extremely dis-organised but it does agree with the end to the hereditary priveledge which means the abolishment of the House of Lords and the monarchy. It is my belief that most people agree with them on the House of Lords and once that's gone, it's only a matter of time before people apply the reasons we abolished the Lords to the monarchy and abolish that.

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

Lastly, at least at this time I can find not one public opinion poll conducted in the UK that would suggest that the Monarchy be abolished. I would suggest that your views are quite in the minority.

They are in the minority because no major party has the guts to take a stance on the issue. If they all had to make their position clear as to whether monarchists or republicans, I think you'd find that more people opened up on the issue and that my views (whilst probably not the majority) would form a significant base of opinion. The fact is that to call it a constitutional monarchy is a gross oxymoron. We have no constitution, we have a series of acts of parliament that give the rich the upper hand. The problem in Britain at the moment is that the voting majority are people over the age of 60. Now today that means the monarchy is safe but when the 70s kids and 80s kids become those 60 year olds - things will change. Those eras were far less deferential and so there's a young generation of republicans that I predict will insist on a decision on the Lords and the Monarchy in the next 40 years or so. I think that's a shame because we miss an opportunity to end the charade after Charles has had his go, which misses an opportunity to welcome the new republic in with dignity. But oh well....

[Picmajik]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

They're quite welcome to do a Duke of Windsor and shuffle off to Buffalo.

The Windsor Shuffle--I can imagine that!

Firstly, Britain is not a democracy and the question of abolishing the monarchy has not and will not come to front line politics due to the nature of the political scene in this country. And if it did, bear in mind that we have the House of Lords which would stand in the way of any real progress on the matter of a republic. Please don't be naive and believe that the UK is a democracy, we're far from it...To suggest that a government would fall because it makes Britain more democratic and more equal is absurd.

Isn't Britain considered a constitutional monarchy? Not a true democracy. People are always calling the USA a democracy and we're not. We are a representative republic. I blame the state of public education and willingness to believe the media for this common misconception.

You really don't need the capitals, I haven't got glaucoma. Nor have I got sympathy for people who are born into luxury, are kept into luxury by the people and live for many years as a result of that fabulous treatment. Personal lives are personal I agree but if personal lives interfere with professional lives then as in any environment, the boss has the right to criticise and to demand that his workers meet the standard that's acceptable to both the workers and to the company. Yes the media are intrusive, yes some of the public disrespect them, yes they are expected to put up with it - but if they don't like then they can always go away. If they want personal freedom, they can go away. The days of paying Peter's Pence and not criticising the big wigs who spend it are gone. The country keeps the Royal Family afloat financially, we kept the Queen Mum in stockings and gin for years - in return, she played the game and opened fetes in silly hats. It's not brain surgery, it's a job anyone can do - and thats what the RF have to remember. Whilst we say we dont want them to marry this person or that person, they won't marry them because they're in our employ and they do what we expect. Not the other way around. And if they don't like that, they're always welcome to join their 'subjects' in the real world.

As Elspeth pointed out, many businesses here are starting to have some say in worker's lifestyles outside of work. Not smoking if you have their healthcare benefits is a big issue for some businesses. They do not mean no smoking while you are at work, it is no smoking at all, period. One company in town would even pay toward no smoking therapies to avoid having to pay for long term coverage later in life due to smoking related illnesses. The prospective employee is advised of this before being hired so it is still up to them to accept this condition or not. I do not know if the RF has options about what duties will or will not be performed but I imagine if there are health issues they would be able to decline some functions. I have no idea how it would or would not affect the civil list.

Sweet Charity, Mame, Evita - I can do 'em all.

No Lola? I'd pay to see any of these!

[Picmajik]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

A relative of the President could. A mother, a sister, a daughter. Or, shock horror, the President could just be a single man for his time in office. Let's face it, a First Lady really is only to make things look pretty.

In the few cases where we've had a single/widowed President then a niece or a daughter has filled in as First Lady.